So here is a list of Obama’s basic energy policies: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy You might want to look at the CIA website, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html and scroll to the bottom third for energy numbers. Basically, we consume 21 million barrels of oil a day, 13 million barrels of which are imported. We peaked in oil production in the early 1970’s, so there is no ‘drilling our way’ to energy independence. And “clean coal” is a slogan, not a technology. Solar and wind are nice ideas, but produce less than 1% of our energy. I see one big thing missing from the energy policy: a sense of urgency. What we need is a massive retrofitting now! I say, convert all federal buildings to geothermal immediately (and commercial and residential will see the benefits and follow), reduce max speeds on highways to 55, give tax breaks to businesses which allow workers to telecommute, improve ports and rail…do anything and everything NOW while we still have a little bit of time. By the CIA’s own numbers, we have 7.5 years of proven oil reserves. (21 billion barrels of ‘proven’ reserves divides by 7.5 million barrels a day = 7.67 years). The days of cheap and abundant oil are gone. Yes, I am from the peak oil camp, and don’t see Obama’s energy policy as being nearly as aggressive as it truly needs to be. I have seen 35 years of a suicidal energy policy and we are about to pay a huge price. Your thoughts?
The solution will be a combination of measures. Increase use of rail for transportation and transporting goods, conversion of public transportation vehicles and freight trucks from diesel to natural gas, government programs to fund development of wind and solar farms in the areas deemed most efficient, increased funding in alternative fuel vehicles, construction of new nuclear power production facilities, increase production and availibility of ALL domestic supplies of gas and oil, tax incentives to commerical and residential structures that are constructed with "green" systems, etc.... Some of the ideas. I also agree with much of Pickens Plan. www.pickensplan.com
Me too. When I first heard about Pickens, and his obvious vested interests, I was leery. I still am to a degree, but at the same time, he is exactly the type who gets things done, and this has got to be a public/private partnership.
I think Pickens is genuine. I'm not saying he's had a spiritual epiphany, but he's a smart businessman. He (and Gore -- see his NYT editorial from Sunday-- and Obama too, I think) sees alternative energy not only as responsible and moral, but the way to launch an entirely new economy. The ever-omnipotent "market" will move too slowly on this. Government has to take the lead with incentives (and disincentives for taking the easy way and refusing to shift from old carbon to new renewable). Gore editorial: Insightful, like him or not: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
Thanks for the link to the Gore editorial. I'd support all of that. There is money to be made here, as well as security to be gained.
Summit reveals Abu Dhabi as world leader in race for future energy solutions The first World Future Energy Summit, which took place in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) last month, has firmly established this small Gulf emirate as a world leader in the increasingly urgent race to find innovative solutions to the coming energy crisis. Link to source. excerpt, Masdar City wiki I agree, we (USA) need a project of this scale "atleast".
Interesting that the UAE, who stands to lose their entire economy in a shift from oil, would be so far-sighted about alternative energy. Ponder for a moment this thoughtful long view the UAE are taking, the understanding that sometimes we must reject short-term gain for a longer, more responsible effort. Then ponder this: " Drill, baby drill." Quite a contrast. We (the U.S.) are not leading on this crisis, and we should be.
It looks like a fairly ambitious strategy. The government has an ecoAuto rebate already here in Canada if you buy fuel efficient cars and hybrids, but it's already being phased out by March 2009 because they're so popular and have caught on. Says you can get a $7000 rebate for buying a car. Pretty kewl.
Funny how our sense of urgency seems to be dictated by the cost of oil, not by the reality that it's a limited resource. We should've been looking into this back in the 70's after the oil embargo, but instead we got more and more entrenched because special interests trumped better judgement and long term vision of the big picture. Now our economy is so entrenched in the oil market that bad things will happen if we switch to green energy too quickly (which is absurd, but true). When you think about it, most of our biggest problems have been caused by our dependency on oil. The Pickens Plan is cool, I hope it gains momentum. I'm looking at weening my way onto greener energy sources, and my hope is that the Obama Administration will provide encouragement in the form of subsidies and/or tax incentives. I'd like to see solar and wind become more main stream, and a program in which you can gradually build an infrastructure of solar panels and wind mills into your home in stages, as you can afford it. As that becomes more main stream, the cost will drop, and it'll become more within reach. The first step is education, awareness, and some way to get the oil companies out of the way, or find a way for them to profit from the shift. If the Obama Administration can make green energy more profitable than oil, coal, and nukes by imposing taxes on "conventional" energy, and tax breaks on green energy, it'll happen. Unfortunately, that means that a number of extremely wealthy and powerful oil lobbyists will stand to profit less, and we can't have that happen.
Is California taxing carbon emissions now? Seems I've read that they've started the "tax and trade" emissions credit system, where emissions are traded like commodities. Of course, this is probably more of a baby step than the actual overhaul we need.
It seems to me they are, or they're about to, which is a step in the right direction. Taxation on energy use and carbon emissions seems like the only politically viable alternative, given the resistance from the oil industry.
I was biking with The Princess on the weekend; we were pedaling past a horse farm. I noted a big windmill. One of those farm windmills with about 16 paddles, the ones used to pump up water from wells. The windmill is tall perhaps five stories high. and it was not rotating on a November day, five miles from the ocean. Curious that there was not enough wind to power the device on a clear Fall day? Is wind power a practial soultion for our energy needs?
was the windmill in working order? and are you on crack? just a few miles off the Jersey shore, there is much wind. one idling windmill v. years of science... now tell me the NYPost is not rotting your brain.
The honest answer to your question is no, wind power is not, and never will be, a practical solution to all our energy needs. What no one in the green power movement is willing to admit is that alternative energy systems SUCK when compared to oil. We are all supposed to say oil is bad, green is good, but it is bullshit as far as comparable energy. The biggest reason we aren’t using alternative energy is because oil is the best energy source mankind has ever found. You can do everything with it from make fertilizer to send a man to the moon. The problem is, the days of cheap and abundant oil are gone. I read today that China’s oil use was up 28% from last year. 28%! We aren’t going to find a technology that is better or as practical as oil (Aside from the obvious environmental and perhaps long-term cost factors.) It really is a question of finding ways to survive when an entire civilization used up its best energy source (and melted the ice caps in the process.)
